Fujifilm GFX 50R Review

The Fujifilm GFX 50R is a 50 megapixel rangefinder-styled medium format mirrorless camera. It shares most of its components with the existing GFX 50S, including both its sensor and processor, but re-arranges them into a slightly smaller and less expensive package. And though the GFX 50R provides essentially the same image quality as its elder sibling, the handling and controls make for a very different shooting experience.

The Fujifilm GFX 50R is available now with a recommended selling price of $4500.

Alongside the announcement, Fujifilm also added a 40mm-equivalent 'pancake'-style 50mm F3.5 lens to its lineup. This lens hasn't arrived as of this writing, unfortunately, but should pair well with the (comparatively) compact 50R body.

I'm pretty sure rangefinder refers to a focusing mechanism that determines a distance. It was a split image method. This camera likely has an electronic version of that. You focus and it shows you the distance on a scale. So it is a rangefinder in a digital way.

I think it's fair to say there is an analog rangefinder (Leica) and there is a digital rangefinder that accomplishes the same task digitally. In the same way that a digital camera is still a camera, a digital rangefinder is arguably still a rangefinder, albeit digital.

I'm not sure, but I think that Fuji has a fair claim to the rangefinder label if it's qualified as having a digital rangefinder mechanism rather than an analog rangefinder mechanism. They aren't the same, but functionally very similar.

Looks like a much heavier X-E3. Given the fact that X-E3 is completely unbalanced with any lens you put onto in except maybe the 27mm, this camera clearly lacks grip. Or more to the point, Fuji wants you to buy a grip from htem if you want to carry the camera around.And where's the D pad? What are those people thinking? I know there's snow in Japan, they must have heard about the gloves....

I am the happy owner of 3 fuji medium format film rangefinders: an all manual 645, an AF 645, and a 69 beast. Absolutely wonderful cameras with great output. I still use them every few months. They are awesome on travel.In digital I happily use the xt2.I am very excited by this semi affordable camera, it looks awesome for slower non-sport oriented photography.And while it is a “small” medium format, the tonal subtlety of this sensor size is already noticeable vs full frame - this from examining leica medium format pictures, with a similar sensor size.With the great fuji lenses Inexpect that this will be a formidable travel camera.

In reality though you can't go wrong with either system. If someone were choosing, I would say choose the one that you will enjoy using the most...the one with the controls, the size, the ergonomics that matter to you. Of course if you have an eye toward future models that matters as well. So for instance, if you wanted to invest in the Fuji today so that you have lenses when they come out with their 100 MP beast, then that too is a consideration.

I have to admit that those Z7 pictures linked above look absolutely stunning in close up. The image quality may be good enough for nearly every, even very picky photographer.It would have been awesome if the photographer had used the new Fuji side by side with the Z7 for these photos to compare.

Am I correct in saying IBIS is less important on medium frame cameras?I mean it has huge sensor that can soak up lots of light, so technically one would be happy without IBIS unless using a telephoto lens(and these usually come with their own IS).

Fuji(film) just introduced a camera to compete with themselves. If you weren’t planning to buy the 50S, why would you buy the 50R? Because it’s a little cheaper? You’ll be wanting lenses and they cost money too. Compared to FF you’re getting a sensor with 1.68x the area and a 0.78 crop factor, everything else about the camera is inferior to typical FF. 3fps, contrast only focus, uninteresting video spec, overall slower handling. It’s a one trick pony. The GFX-50S is $5850 right now from B&H, is a cheaper body at a still expensive $4500 really enough to get you to buy into the system and spend thousands on lenses? And now they have two cameras to manufacture instead of one, they should have just dumped the price of the 50S. Dumb move.

@Old Cameras: I am sure Fuji did their market research and knows their is enough demand for this model.

And all of your analysis misses the point: people buy based on emotion. There is an entire field of economics called Behavioral Economics that proves this. For some people the rangefinder style is very compelling. Style matters to a lot of consumers. Look at the people who will spend more for a Leica rangefinder with far less features. They are not buying based on a calculus of features; they are buying into a feeling, a brand, something more. And Leica makes a handsome profit.

Finally, to answer the question of if the price difference between 50r and 50s of about $1350 really matters: again, it's economics 101. $1350 is enough to move some people to buy who otherwise would not.

You can shoot effectively many full frame lenses on the GF series. Leica R in specific. I think people were having some luck with Canon FD as well. That big sensor is good news for getting more organic and digital looking images. Less smearing and noise and colour sharing. Looking forward to seeing test photos!

Meh, but why? Without a parallax or hybrid finder, I just don't see the point. And really, parallax finders never made sense and that's why TTL SLRs obsoleted them so easily. Parallax finders were the solution at the time, but not THE solution.

EVF positioning could be anywhere, even movable or detachable. Way off to the side of a lens creates varying degrees of parallax when switching between naked-eye-viewing and EVFing of your subject and creates an unnecessary dissonance and composition compromises far less present when viewing close subjects through a finder directly above the lens.

That's the thing... When you can put an EVF anywhere but end up putting it up and way off to one side, it is clearly a contrived choice. Compound that with another counterintuitive choice to make a larger-than-FF-sensored body that will often be mounted to big heavy lenses essentially a rectangular brick with a little nub for a "grip," and it's clearly purely aesthetic, not at all functional. :(

The fact Fuji is following up with two models after the 50s shows that they sold enough to deem it worth the effort.

Yes objectively speaking its unpractical but this is a passion purchase. I mean look at Leica. The M is a totally unpractical camera in both price and features but still sold very well. Same thing with the GFX line. The market is there.

Medium format for the price of full frame. Sounds enticing to me if I were an technical image quality hound. My interest is more in images which look organic. Hard to find these days. Fuji X and Nikon images are very smeary/digital at ISO above 400. Sony's images have always looked digital (blue and sharpened) going back 15 years through their Handicams. Historically Canon has done better but the EOS R images also look every digital. The most organic looking images on digital were the Canon 5D well-exposed. MFT just doesn't make the grade at all.

If the GF MF is the only way to get organic looking images (when scaled down), maybe I'll join the club.

A center EVF is not objectively better than a corner one, its just what people are used to because it worked best for SLRs. I've had Fujis with both EVF positions; XE2, XT1, and both X-Pros. I find the corner viewfinder much more comfortable because I shoot with my rught eye. Since the EVF displays what the lens sees, just like with the OVF in a DSLR, this camera does not have parallax issues. While I agree that a camera with two EVF mount points is interesting, it would cause usability issues because most of the top plate would be devoid of dials.

And due to its digital overlay, in actual use any parallax issues with the X-Pro's OVF are minimal and don't get in the way of shooting. This might not be apparent to someone whose only experience with it from reading about it, not by using it.

Not the camera itself having parallax issues. Eyeball-subject to eyeball-finder parallax issues. Particularly when conversing with a subject and switching from looking your subject in the eye (with your own physical eyes) and looking through the finder.

And, haha, the 50R isn't exactly filled with dials and buttons. ;) I'm not suggesting necessarily that the EVF *should* be movable, just that it could be. Would be interesting to, rather than have a sliding adjustable EVF, have a weatherproof locking removable EVF that could be inserted into a port on the left side or center, so as to only take up about 1/2 square inch to 1 square inch of extra real estate. Take your pick. Would be nice to have a layout with right-side EVF as well.

But... that 2nd port doesn't need to be unused. The other port could hold an equal-footprint (compared to EVF) possibly thinner weatherproof locking removable module that's either a cluster of Function buttons or a dial or a joystick. Or even take your pick of module.

Whats your experience with EVF-only rangefinder style cameras? What's your experience with the X-Pro2? Because your talking like OVF parallax issues somehow still exist without the OVF. I have never experienced the eyeball parallax issues you mention when shooting with my pro2 in either viewfinder modes.

+Sir 7 But what would you think is a fair pricing on a brand new medium format body?

Consider other brands;Pentax 645Z = $5500Hasselblad X1D-50c = $6500

While I will admit the Pentax is due for a major price reduction at this point I still think $4500 is a very good price entry(I won't buy but this will look more appealing when the price dips below $4k).

Fuji is losing in this battle with one leg tied behind their back - their main sensor is APS-C. To stay in the game, Fuji have to smear and desaturate images (at least there's very little chroma noise in the X-Trans images) from ISO 800 and up.

Most of my rangefinder experience came from working for an athletic portrait company in the summer of 1985. We had to use company-supplied Canonets with Sunpak grip flashes in the field. It was a good setup that took great pictures, but at that time i was shooting a motor-driven F3hp as my personal camera so i found the Canonet inefficient and relatively uncomfortable to shoot. Since then I've played with other 35mm rangefinders that belonged to others but never cared for them. Since my beginnings with them I've just found them inefficient. I'm ALL about ergonomics. That's my thing. I've played with a friend's XPro1 and was amused by the hybrid finder, but again, wouldn't choose to shoot with it. I like the nostalgic look of rangefinders, but looks are a novelty. I'm an aggressive photographer with no patience for inefficiency and no tolerance for a camera that gets in my way and costs me shots.

I wouldn't shoot the 50R if someone gave it to me for free. Don't take such a harsh-SOUNDING statement to mean i hate this camera. That is absolutely not the case. But i do hate its ergonomics. The 50R's ergonomics are horrible. There are few buttons and dials, and the buttons it has are tiny and flat and placed close together. That's a deal-breaker for me. I will not shoot this camera.

If its sensor was true MF-size, as in 60x45, i might make the sacrifice for that kind of low-noise performance and DOF depending on available lens selection. But as things stand now, I'd shoot my FF DSLR over the 50R without a second thought.

Well, i don't have much experience with Canon cameras so I'm certainly no expert regarding their specific ISO ranges. I hear what you're saying though. There's just an image "feel" that certain cameras have that's difficult or impossible to quantify. It's why i immediately fell in love with my D800E that I've been shooting since the day it came out. It's why i like the IQ of my D7200 more than my D7500 (i gotta sell that piece of crap already) or D500. And its why i can't get rid of my D7000, as its grain is very film-like. I shoot my D7000 at ISO 3200 or 6400 and RAW-process for monochrome. Awesome black-and-white photos.

The 50r costs less to manufacture. It is also significantly easier to carry on a strap because it doesn't have the hump on the back and weighs a little less. There are some clear advantages.

The fact that Fuji has the XT3, Xpro2, XH1, XE3 etc all on the market together and clearly many users own several models indicates the the 50r plus 50s may, rather than harming each other, be helping each other.

$1350 helps a lot when you need a lens and with the current deals on lenses you can get it with the 63 for $500 or with the 45 for $700 and there are some reports of dealers allowing both, which is still less than $1350. So I think the price is significant and allows Fuji to sweep up a bunch of people who wanted the 50s but hesitated due to price.

Now Hassy is facing the biggest competion - the Fujifilm GFX-50R! The GFX-50S was never the real competition, whileas from Size bigger, and with it's huge, detach-able EVF more for Fashion and or/Studio work, albeit cheaper than the X1D already.

This GFX-50R really kicks ass, for 4500 USD, worlds cheaper than the X1D, with the same sensor.

And all Hassy currently does have, is a 80mm F1.9 new Lens for their X1D....imagine, the Phase One XF 100 MP costs a fortune, whileas the Fujifilm GFX-100S would being around 10k into 2019 - and at least 3x cheaper, and for this, one can very easily accept the something smaller MF Sensor.

I know, Phase One is already at 150 MP....but Fujifilm does WIN for Price to Performance Ratio, best, cheapest MF System into the Market currently, into its Price Class.

Further, the expertise is already there, Fujifilm does professional Broadcast TV Lenses, and made MF lenses for Hasselblad some time before...their GFX System shows.

I shot the GFX50S for an afternoon and found it a little heavy in my hand but when I opened the files on my computer I had to pick my jaw up from the floor they were so good wide open with the 110 F2. This seems to be the best of both worlds, compact and the same IQ.

I can't see medium format becoming the new 35 (i will never call it full frame). For that to happen, medium format would need a camera with the performance of a Nikon D5 or Canon 1Dx. Medium Format has never been a run and gun machine. It has always been a more deliberate process than 35mm.

Except that full frame, APS-C, 4/3 and 1in image sensors will also continue to improve under your moore's law type assumptions. Medium format sensors aren't likely to be a focus area given that the larger surface area also means lower yields and it is a much smaller addressable market than full frame, which has a huge marketing advantage in being called "full frame" and seen as the best trade off between size vs. performance.

Think the next big leap will be curved sensors and maybe unique camera arrays rather than just going to a bigger sensor.

@tonyz1: you could be right with your predictions. But consider this...as all brands and all sensor sizes benefit from increasing processing power, the relative margin of difference will shrink. The key isn't whether MF can catch up in fps but if it can cross a threshold of being good enough for a large enough percentage of buyers.

So let's say a D5/1DX does 12 fps today and this Fuji MF does 3. Let's say a D6/1DXIII or whatever then goes to 20 fps, while this Fuji MF goes to "only" 8 to 10 fps. At that point it becomes good enough for many people who want to shoot higher speed action. And it has a MF sensor.

Again, I'm just throwing out food for thought...it's pure speculation about the future. I appreciate your thoughts and interesting times are ahead!

Even if Medium Format were able to reach 8-10 FPS, how many editors have a desire to look at hundreds, or thousands of files that large? Do you realize how many shots these sports photographers are sending to their editors? You have to consider the work flow not just of the photographers, but on the people making the end product. Medium format will always be a different animal.

+Thoughts R Us I agree with your general statement about the threat from smartphone and I also agree that makes medium format a more viable option. I don't agree it's going to be the new 35mm as others stated but there could be a more fractured distribution between 35mm and MF but I think this will ultimately depend on how new tech like curved sensors will impact the market. If i had to guess based on how tech tends to trend the future will rely on brand new tech that will not be massively dependent on the sensor size. We see this all the time in lots of different areas like car engines with turbos or computer chips using many cores in their architecture. Now we have pixel shift modes stacked sensors...etc. I have no idea what cutting edge tech they will come up with in 20 years but it will probably change our ideas greatly about sensor performance.

A while back I rented the GFX 50s and I found the AF to be very sure and accurate, and surprisingly quick and responsive. I didn't try to shoot events or stuff moving; mostly flowers and landscapes, but I was pleasantly surprised. It did not feel different to me than most other mirrorless.

For lower speed movement, I think it would be fine. To capture fast action I would probably use another tool.

I explicitly mention why I don't consider the 645Z a peer of this camera: it's too big.

I'd certainly consider the Pentax alongside the GFX 50S. But since this model is overtly designed to be smaller and more portable than the 'S', it would seem odd to then compare it to a camera that's even bigger.

Also, since the two digital 645 models so far have been 44 x 33mm sensors, I'm not sure what makes them any more or less medium format than this one.

Pentax and then Ricoh/Pentax missed a big time opportunity when they stuck to a DSLR design for their MF system. I can understand to some extent their commitment to the K mount where they had most of their customers and a ton of history, but what was the point of keeping alive a MF mount which they could have just maintained compatibility with via an adapter? Always looking back to their past instead of looking at their future.

The Hasselblad is terrible value for money. What advantages does it offer, over the other mirrorless? In short zilch, nada, zip, didley. The Fuji looks very good, but I’d still prefer the S, second hand they might be similar prices to the R?

I rented both the Hassy and the Fuji GFX 50s just to try. There is no comparison: The Fuji is infinitely superior and I mean that. The Hassy was probably the worst camera experience I've used in the last 10 years: slow, laggy, buggy, extremely poor battery, etc. I was never so happy to send a camera back. Chris and Jordan named it their worst camera of the year that it was released and it deserved it.

The Fuji worked great; it was even faster and more responsive than some make it out to be. And it was not bad to carry around outside; not too heavy. It was a very pleasant experience and of course the images were glorious.

I'm looking forward to objective comparisons (why hello DPR) between this and the Z7 and a7RIII. I can't think of a single area where this camera will win outside of beautiful built-in Instagram filters but I'm looking forward to seeing the contest anyway.

I noticed that this has the exactly the same horizontal resolution as the D850/Z7.If you shoot 2:3, I doubt the differences are much at all (considering FF is BSI).Like you say, interesting to see, especially with new Nikon lenses in the pipeline.

Look at the imaging-resource files in their comparometer <https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM>. Besides the greater Fuji sharpness and resolution, there's a smoother tone gradient, and, at least to my eye a more 3D look to the Fuji, though may be partly do to the lenses. I also prefer Fuji color, again a personal preference. There's resolution and there is the of the bigger pixels.

That's not saying that the Fuji is better for your purposes, just that it does have an IQ advantage.

@mactheweb: True, there has to be some noticeable advantages to those bigger pixels, but, in practice, there is no 'real' resolution advantage, you just get a bit more image with the Fuji (4:3 ratio vs 3:2).Don't get me wrong, as a landscape photographer I would much rather the bigger sensor, but the significantly cheaper FF offerings might be nearly as good.

@Peak freak. I agree. Whether the difference is enough to make up for other factors is certainly personal.

I rented a GFX and a D850 last spring. I keep looking at the prints and waffle on springing for the Fuji. It would put off quite a bit of travel for a couple of years. However, the prints are stunning. It's not just resolution. The subtlety of color and transitions make my mouth water. The Nikon just isn't quite there. The lower price of the GFX-R just might swing me, and I have Nikon gear, a D810.

@mactheweb: Yeah, I get what you are saying. Often it is those subtle differences that add up to make a significant difference.I have a landscape book by a New Zealand artist who uses a Phase One P65 (next level I know) and a D810. The differences are very noticeable to me. Similar for scanned wide format film which I think looks amazing if processed (Photoshop) properly. Bigger is better...

@FuhTeng: I think the differences are most apparent when printed, particularly large prints where any detail, colour or tonal deficiencies are exaggerated.The average observer may not even notice, but it can be particularly satisfying to see large format, fine art prints, expertly reproduced. It is the detail that can be extracted from a high quality camera / lens combination that impresses me most. [Or, depresses me. I think my 5D2 printed files look pretty good until I compare them to a large format image].

Hows that saying go again? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?

If so, then thanks! And for the record, I'd say the A9's silent shutter read-out speed and Eye AF are bigger "game changers" for wedding shooters than a "medium format" camera with a bunch of f/2.8 lenses.

While I don't like to mock people, I'd love to see the reaction of the hipster photographers who are not knowledgeable about this "old, incapable looking" camera with yesteryear aesthetics (which I actually like).

"While I don't like to mock people, I'd love to see the reaction of the hipster photographers..."

I'm not exactly sure what a hipster is (I don't live in an english speaking country), but considering the way they are often talked about they must be doing a lot of things wrong. Or are they just being bullied?

I think the comment needs clarification :DBy hipster I meant that the folks who thinks using old technology is cool or "the only right way". I also implicitly extended the definition to people with high egos who thinks they are the only people who can use a camera properly, and as an extension, the only real/good/right camera is the camera they use.

Actually, all was intended as a joke. Since the body looks very understated and it's bigger than most of the bodies of today; it looks old, incapable and dated, and I mused that how these few people think about it the GFX50R without knowing its prowess.

Didn't intend to troll, or discriminate people, but just written this comment as a small mental exercise. I'm sorry if it sounded otherwise.

BTW, Lessiter, I'm a computer scientist, and can be considered culturally disadvantaged, however I do not dig big or specced up cameras. Also, I'm not offended, but just wanted to let you know. :)

Why on earth not? The fact are in the digital age allows camera makers to provide things like "flippy screens" which are useful easily.

Back in the days of film the likes of Hasselblad had a whole host of different viewfinders you could attach so you could alternate between different ways to view the scene, waist level or direct view etc. Even the 35mm Nikon F2's has detachable viewfinders for the same reason. So did the original Canon F1.

Now in the digital era this ability is a piece of cake to add via a "flippy screen".

It's not a badge of honour to have a camera without a "flippy screen" you know.

well I don't want a camera that's based on a trend, especially something i will have no personal use for, use as many constantly banter about having one. For me the X-Pro 2 is fine as it with some exception to the ISO dial or at least the lack of not assigning full ISO control with the FN button. Besides that what more can be done to it? Better ISO and processing, AF enhancements, battery life, Improved EVF, lockable diopter

When autofocus was introduced there were people in my camera club who moaned when more and more manufactuers released autofocuing SLRs. I'm glad the camera companies never listened to them. Same with same thing as ergonomic as a flip screen. I'm not a young buck anymore and not willing to lay down on the dirt or strain my neck to get those low angel shots.

As much of an advantage as flippy screens are, I don't think the xpro-3 will have one. The x-pro line is already relatively expensive (compared to XT series) becasue of the hybrid viewfinder. Adding a flippy screen is going to add to the cost and the size.

@HB1969 exactly my point. If you want a flippy screen then get the appropriate camera but why must every camera have one? Why must every camera have video capabilities when not everyone wants to shoot video? For me these are unnecessary that add to the cost. Sure give me the improved AF and such but there a lot of things that are just not needed for many people.

Rob890 is right: the X-Pros are cameras for eyepiece-photographers ONLY, which is where they really shine and actually have NO competitors. So, please, no tilting Nintendo DS like screens on this jewel, and, Fuji, release a wholly titanium X-Pro3T with no video garbage and take my money.

I disagree on the video front. I don't shoot video but a lot of the tech that improves video could also improve still photography. Eg better heat sink to cope with 4K probably means lower noise long exposure still photography. Faster sensor read out to eliminate rolling shutter in video means better electronic shutter performance for stills. That's just off the top of my head.

I was ready to order Fuji GFX 50s when I heard of this 50R version and decided to wait. I am not disappointed with the review. Slimmer package, better price and the same image quality. Take my money please.

I can't hear some guys complaining "old sensor", for instance, the D800(e) & D810, Pentax K-1 and K-1 II using the same sensor, back then, 36 MP FF, from 2012 - still doing great. (check the Pentax Pixelshift Pictures). And for Sensor recycling: Canon topped all others, whileas using the same 18 MP APS-C Sensor starting from their EOS 550D (2009) still nowadays, i've made a joke some time ago, that it might still being used up to 2020/21, and that might perhaps came through, currently, into the EOS 4000D, and being used by >25 different DLSR & APS-C Mirrorless M-Series by Canon, that is a hell old Sensor. ;-)

The GFX-50s(r) still holds it's own, against the D850, and is a bit sharper, better rendition, compared to current HighEnd FF-offerings, that is by design, and the bigger sensor, bigger pixels, and better DR, light gathering ability & great Lenses.

Kudos to Fujifilm, to release a MF camera, into great Rangefinder Design, which is the cheapest MF camera ever so far.

I agree...this stuff about the "old sensor"...it's a great sensor and that's all that counts to most people.

It's getting to the point that the only cameras to get good reviews will be ones with all new tech every time. And that is not going to happen with every new model, just like we don't get entirely new car redesigns every year with every model.

It seems that there is very little merit among the reviewers for a great, solid, proven product. Of course we also have a big deal here in being a rangefinder styled relatively small MF camera, for under $5000!

"beyond the measurable pluses and minuses, we suspect some people will simply appreciate a camera that rewards considered shooting with excellent image quality."Finally, DPR gets over its measurebation fixation. Good personal growth story.

For the HVF to work with the physically larger GFX lenses it would need to be further from the lens mount that this "small" camera allows. It's obvious that the X-Pro1 was modeled after Fuji's own T-X2 so a GFX-TX50 would have a wider body and be super cool.

Medium format mirrorless are around for a while. Hasselblad and Pentax had them for years, without calling names on others ;) You can't fight FF with an MF, no matter how great it is - because these are 2 different leagues

The Fujifilm GFX 50R is the most affordable medium format digital camera ever, but how much of an advantage does it offer over the best of its full-frame mirrorless peers? We shot it alongside the Nikon Z7 so you can decide for yourselves.

Photographer Nigel Danson recently had a chance to use the new Fujifilm GFX 50R for one of his landscape shoots. In this video, he shares his thoughts on the benefits and challenges of using a medium format camera like the GFX 50R for his work.

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

This year, plenty of amazing cameras, lenses, accessories and other products came through our doors. As 2018 winds down, we're highlighting some of our standout products of the year. Check out the winners of the 2018 DPReview Awards!

Latest in-depth reviews

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

The S1H is a full frame mirrorless camera designed with videographers in mind and includes advanced features like 6K video capture, 4:2:2 10-bit internal recording, improved video scopes, high frame rate recording, Panasonic Varicam color science and more.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.